It is proposed to take Nos. 7, 8, 9, 13 and 2. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House that: (1) Nos. 7 and 8 shall be taken without debate; (2) the following arrangements shall apply in the case of No. 9 — (a) speakers shall not exceed 20 minutes and (b) The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs shall be called on not later than 1.20 p.m. to make a concluding speech which shall not exceed ten minutes. (3) The proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 13 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at 5 p.m. today and the Minister for Labour shall be called on to conclude the debate not later than 4.45 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal in respect of Nos. 7 and 8 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 9 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 13 agreed? Agreed.
In respect of promised legislation, namely, the Finance Bill, 1991, and the Social Welfare Bill, 1991, I should be greateful if the Taoiseach would arrange for a debate in this House, before those Bills are finalised, on the poverty traps which have been disclosed indicating that anybody who seeks promotion or works overtime at a certain income level can actually be worse off as a result of the extra effort. Would the Taoiseach agree that it would be useful to have a debate on this subject before the finalisation of the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill, which are likely to make the position worse?
That is a rather absurd sort of suggestion. The debate on both Bills will give ample opportunity to discuss any of the matters to which Deputy Bruton refers.
Deputy Bruton should not give rise to argument now. The situation is quite clear.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the problem is the interaction of social welfare and taxation and that we need to discuss them together in one debate? The proposal to have a debate prior to the finalisation of these Bills makes sense.
That might be something for the Whips to discuss.
Fine Gael have already made such a suggestion through the Whips, so far without success.
Has the Taoiseach any intention of having a meeting with the Archbishop of Dublin, given the wide divergence of views that exists between the Hierarchy and the Government in relation to proposed family planning legislation?
That hardly arises now, Deputy Spring.
(Interruptions.)
Thank you for your courtesy. Needless to say, a lot of things may arise in forthcoming months.
No doubt, but not now.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach if a report has been brought to his attention to the effect that in court yesterday during the Eksund case a French State official indicated that the French understanding of the Provisional terror campaign in the North is that it is part of an ancient struggle. Will the Taoiseach take steps to convey to one of our partners in the European Community that this is not the case?
I have listened carefully to the Deputy. Clearly the matter he is raising is not appropriate to the Order of Business. He must find another way of raising the matter.
It is absolutely right.
It is important that the Government should take an early opportunity to convey to the French Government precisely what is going on in Northern Ireland.
When will the Local Government Bill be circulated to this House?
I have dealt with this several times. It will be circulated and taken in plenty of time for the June local government elections.
When I asked this question previously the Taoiseach said it would be before the summer. Since purported extracts from the Bill are being published in the newspapers, it would keep some modicum of relevance in this House if Members were allowed to read the intentions of the Government in relation to local government reform before they are discussed in the national press.
Members of the House will be informed very shortly of the Government's intentions. The first instalment of the Government's progressive reform of local government will be published very shortly.
I would ask the Minister for Labour what steps he intends to take to maintain industrial peace in An Post following the recent unilateral action by the board of that authority to terminate the scheme of conciliation and arbitration.
The matter is not in order now, Deputy, but I am sure the Deputy will find another way of raising the issue.
I tabled a question to the Minister for the Environment asking when legislation will be introduced in this House to abolish local charges, and I got a letter from your office, Sir, saying that the question contained argument. I want to reject your ruling absolutely. It was an abuse of language.
Deputy Stagg, you may not challenge my ruling. You will now resume your seat.
You, Sir, have a duty to protect the Members of this House——
How dare you, Deputy, challenge the Chair in this fashion.
——and not protect Ministers against such proper questioning.
Leave the House Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
I have a right to be in this House and I have a right to ask questions in this House. I have a right to table questions and you, Sir, instructed me to table that question and you then ruled that question out of order. Sir, in your previous exsistence on these benches, you were a champion of the rights of Members of this House——
Deputy, you are out of order. This is an uncalled for personal attack on the Chair. Deputy Stagg, resume your seat.
I have these rights. I am seeking as a democrat sent here by the people of Kildare to exercise these rights. I have a right to table questions to the Minister for the Environment on promised legislation.
This is a disgraceful attack. I must insist that the Deputy leave the House.
It is a legitimate question.
Deputy Stagg, Deputy Howlin, this is an uncalled for attack on the Chair of a most unjustifiable kind which cannot be substantiated.
It can be substantiated.
Never. The Deputy should desist.
You, Sir, instructed me through your office to table the question and when I did you ruled it out of order on totally spurious grounds that it contained argument. That is an abuse of language and an abuse of my rights in this House.
Deputy Stagg, the Chair rules in accordance with Standing Orders and the precedents of this House and no other way.
Can we then not ask questions about legislation promised by parliamentary questions? How then may we ask the Government about their intentions or what they promised the public they would do?
If the Deputy had done me the courtsey of consulting me in this matter I would have explained the position to him. He gave me no such notice.
It was a straightforward question.
The Chair ordered me out of this House previously on this issue.
On a point of order, Sir.
A moment please, Deputy. I am on my feet addressing the House on a matter of gross disorder. In these circumstances I will not, nor can I be expected to entertain points or order.
There is no disorder now.
May I ask a question on the Order of Business.
May I raise a point order?
The Chair is not on his feet.
Have we on this side of-the House no rights?
A point of order takes precedence.
If the Deputies are referring to the previous episode, it is not in order.
On a point of order, Sir, on the Order of Business, how is it possible for a Deputy on the Opposition benches to ask a question in relation to promised legislation, if questions are ruled out of order? Can the Chair direct or assist me on that?
This is a matter I understand which is going before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
May I seek the guidance of the Chair as to how I might ask the Minister for the Environment when he will introduce legislation to abolish local charges.
The General Office are very helpful to Members in phrasing question.
Deputy Bruton is not the only Member who can shout in this House. If that is to be his modus operandi we can all shout.
Hear, hear.
The Deputy should seek to restrain the Member behind him. I now call Deputy Bruton.
The Deputy has rights.
May I ask the Taoiseach about a matter which is probably of interest to people outside this House, Item No. 10, the establishment of a Select Committee on Crime. As the Taoiseach is aware, this is a matter that has been going on for some time and there have been disputes between the parties about it. I wrote to the Taoiseach some time ago and he replied in a non-commital way indicating that discussions were proceeding through the Whips. I understand, in fact, that the Government have made no specific proposals in response to ours through the Whips and I would be grateful if the Taoiseach would give this matter his personal attention with a view to coming to an agreement on this before the Easter recess.
I will do that.
In respect of promised legislation in this House, may I ask the Taoiseach in regard to the proposed local government legislation if it will contain, in the various sections, the commitment given by the Fianna Fáil Party to abolish local charges?
This does not arise now, Deputy Quinn.
I think it does. We are trying within the rules of this House which you have a responsibility to administer——
Do not lecture me, Deputy.
I am not trying to lecture you. We are trying within the rules of the House to elicit legitimate information and we are being frustrated. There is no other way of dealing with the matter.
The question has been ruled out of order.
It is a well established precedent that the House waits to see the Bill and the contents of the Bill. When the Bill is published the Deputy will be aware of what is in it and he will have ample opportunity then to debate it.
That is not a point.
May I ask the Taoiseach when it is proposed to circulate the text of the Milk Agency Bill.
It is not ready yet, Deputy, but I will let you know when it is hoped to circulate it.
Will it be taken this session?
It may not be.
May I remind the Taoiseach of the commitment entered into in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress——
That is argument; the Deputy should not remind the Taoiseach of commitments.
Deputy Andrew Boylan.
In reply to a query I raised yesterday morning, the Taoiseach clearly indicated that good news would be forthcoming about the county roads.
The matter the Deputy raised yesterday morning was not in order and it is not in order now.
On a point of order——
The Deputy may not obstruct the Chair with a spurious point of order.
The statement made by the Taoiseach was totally misleading to this House. Surely we should not be misled by the Taoiseach.
Please resume your seat, Deputy Boylan. The Deputy should resume his seat or leave the House.
The announcement that we received an increased amount of money was not true.
(Interruptions.)
Leave the House, Deputy Boylan. I insist that you leave the House.
(Interruptions.)
Sir, you failed to eject Deputy Stagg but, as soon as Deputy Boylan raises any matter, you want him to leave the House straightaway. That is not in accordance with the proper procedures of this House. You are not being fair as between parties.
I expected that the Leader of the main Opposition Party would help rather than hinder the Chair.
I will defend the rights of the members of my party in this House against all comers when I believe they are being unfairly treated.
Will the Taoiseach explain to me why what he said yesterday morning was the direct opposite to the position?
(Interruptions.).
I must insist that you leave the House, Deputy Boylan.
This is outrageous.
(Interruptions.).
The Taoiseach told the House——
That is grossly unfair. The Chair failed to act on Deputy Stagg.
Does the Deputy wish the Chair's rulings to be violated?
This is part of a pattern.
(Interruptions.).
I now call Deputy Harte.
In view of the local concern in regard to Culmore crossing point in County Donegal, would the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice please make a full statement on the matter? It is very serious.
It does not arise now, Deputy Harte, and the Deputy knows that. Please desist, Deputy Harte. I am coming to the Business proper.
Why do you ignore Opposition Deputies?